“Ugh, not another person blogging about the upcoming Star Wars movie. I suppose you have an opinion about it”

Well, of course I have an opinion on the new Star Wars movie. Like pretty much anyone else my age (let’s call it the Child of the 70s syndrome), Star Wars holds a special place in my life and that hasn’t really diminished with the passing years. I was six when I saw the first one. I still remember sitting in that California theater with my dad by my side as I constantly peppered him with questions (and him responding in curt, hushed tones always followed by a “now, shhh”). I may not have quite understood it all but I loved every minute of it. I stressed out for three years wondering what would become of Han Solo after seeing Empire. I attended a midnight screening for Return of the Jedi ON A SCHOOL NIGHT (unheard of). For years, I kept a newspaper article about how Lucas always envisioned Star Wars to be nine movie series (a plan which through the years he has alternately recanted, denied or revised) and waited for the dream to come to fruition. Which it did. Which, well, yeah…

Anyhow, now that Lucas has passed the reins to Disney (ugh) and more importantly given JJ Abrams the keys to drive episode VII (eh), I am cautiously optimistic that he will avoid the missteps of the second trilogy1 and return with a good movie.2 I’ve already got my tickets for opening night and I’m (mostly) excited about what I’ve seen in the trailers. I mean, if shots of the Falcon flying through the skeletal remains of a Star Destroyer don’t give you chills, then the issue is you my friend.

But, seeing as how massive an influence Star Wars had on my developmental years (even in the ways it slightly stunted them), I do have a certain “ownership” in the future iterations. Unlike other superfans, and this applies to fans of anything really, I don’t pretend to be the voice of all. I know what I think worked and what didn’t; and I know what I want to see and, more importantly, what I don’t.

DO NOT go back to Tatooine – At this point, I think I despise that planet more than Luke ever did. It was fine as an integral part of the original Star Wars movie (it was important to establishing Luke’s character), but they should have never gone back again. I get that Lucas’ thing was planets devised of entirely one ecosystem (with the exception of Naboo, every planet has pretty much stuck to this – ice planet, desert planet, swamp planet, forest moon, water planet, lava planet, so on). And it made for cool location shoots, and maybe having another desert planet would cause confusion, but it’s better than once again returning to a planet that was noted as being “the farthest thing from the center of the universe.” Yet, in was visited in five of the movies.3 No more.5

And on that note, DO NOT create single ecosystem planets. One, I think they’ve all been covered, and, two it started getting a little silly. Of course in addition to, “Tatooine, no.. this is Jakku. Totally different.” it appears we’ll also be getting a very Hoth, but totally-not-Hoth snow planet. And, what may or may not be a return to Yavin’s forest-y moon (which would be okay, because even though the Empire new of the base there, that would make some sense for them to reestablish that location.)

DO NOT create loads of new creatures – I think one of my big issue with the prequels was all of these alien races suddenly popping up. I know this also happened in the OT (original trilogy) but that was a view of a universe that was slowly expanding to the viewer. Why weren’t there any Gungans, Kaminoans, etc. in the OT? (Yeah, it’s rhetorical. I know the answer.) But the point really is that it was mostly unnecessary. You can thrown in a few new creatures, but don’t completely populate the movies with heretofore unseen races. Lucas set up a varied enough cast of creatures through the first three movies – just Mos Eisley and Jabba’s palace alone had enough to choose from – that he could have just continued using those and expanding them. I know that part of this was Lucas’ infatuation with digital creature making which allowed him to go in more fantastical directions. But considering it led to characters like Dexter Jettster (um, a six-armed diner cook with a New York accent? Really? I would have preferred a return of Bea Arthur or creepy Uncle Itchy.) When it came to digital possibilities, Lucas clearly never heeded the classic advice – just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

DO NOT throw in jokey callbacks – As a culture, aren’t we at a saturation point with the whole wink-wink, “Easter Egg,” inside-reference/joke thing. (Maybe it’s just me.) It’s fun to a point but it has been severely overdone in movies and shows to the point where it needs to be let go at times. I particularly bring this up because of how much of a crutch Abrams has used it in the Star Trek movies. I fear he will continue to lean on it here. There’s hope that that was mostly due to the hacky influence of Orci and Kurtzman who will not be involved here, but I”m still really worried about this. I don’t want to see Jar Jar’s bones in the background, I don’t need yet another variation on “I love you.” “I know.” Humor is fine, lazy humor (especially the sort that violates the character and takes you out of the movie – see again, Star Trek) is not.

DO NOT make this about a Skywalker turning to the dark side and needing to be turned back/redeemed7 – I’m pretty sure this one is unavoidable at this point and the big reveal will probably be that Luke has turned (most likely as part of this Knights of Ren) to drive the narrative in “Part VIII – Attack of The Rehashed Plot Device.” I’m already not buying that the masked figure seen in the trailers and posters is necessarily Adam Driver, at least not always. That could easily be Luke (and would explain his conspicuous absence in posters and trailers) at least some of the time with Driver being his disciple. And everyone assumes that the “I will finish what you started” line is being spoken to Vader’s helmet (which to me seems an editing trick) but that could be Kylo (Driver) talking to Luke, or Luke speaking of Vader. Anyhow, for me the bottom line is it would be pretty lame for Luke to succumb to the dark side after originally struggling with it and ultimately rejecting that fate while also being the inspiring for his father’s redemption, only to give in later. To paraphrase Yoda, the writers “…would destroy all for which he had fought, and suffered.”

DO kill off some of the classic characters – I can actually see Chewie dying prior to or during one of the action set pieces late in the movie. It would set a deeper tone and to be honest, I’m not sure Peter Mayhew can physically hold up for more movies. So they either have to devise a way for Chewie to be hurt (sad) or set him up in a battle setting where he gets to pilot a ship or sacrifices himself getting killed heroically in action (as long as his ultimate fate is deserving of his prominence as a character.) Even better, kill off Han Solo. That’s exactly what needs to happen and I highly doubt that it will. This is coming from the greatest Han Solo fan in existence (verified) and someone who distinctly remembers feeling personally betrayed when hearing, back in 1983, that Harrison Ford lobbied to George Lucas to kill him off in the third act of Return of the Jedi to, as I remember the quote, “give this thing some weight.” Back then it would have been a terrible decision, but now it’s the exact right move. There’s likely no avoiding that this movie will focus on the rebuilding of the Jedi and the reemergence of the Sith8. And I’m sure there will be a young “Han Solo type” introduced rendering the original model expendable. Luke is needed for the teaching the ways of the force, Leia possibly too, leaving Han little to do (he’s not going to be running around too much playing action hero, at least I hope not). So his death will be a great way to, you know, give this thing some weight.

DO NOT feel the need to end each movie with a lightsaber battle – I love them, you love them. The film can (and, of course, will) feature a lightsaber duel or two, but it doesn’t have to end that way. Empire and Jedi used the final saber battles between Luke and Darth as a nice bit of symmetry and then, in the prequels, it started to feel like “okay, third act, that means lightsaber duel runs concurrently with a large scale battle where the characters are split up.” Only Star Wars9 and Revenge of the Sith avoided this (Star Wars had the battle but the saber duel was earlier, Sith only had a duel.) So, get it in early or use it to propel the third act if you must (a la Star Wars), but once it becomes formula, it’s time to abandon.

1 – No, I’m not going to directly nitpick the second trilogy. I realize that it comes off as old guy not liking the new stuff and that there are plenty of people who consider The Phantom Menace their favorite. I support their right to be completely wrong. And besides, the entire new trilogy was already deconstructed to perfection.

2 – With the understanding that this may not ever truly be possible. And that is completely due to the bias nature of rosy, childhood memories and the crushing weight of expectations, and not really a reflection of the movie itself.

3 – The Empire Strikes Back being the lone anomaly. And taken that this is the best4 of the movies, is that a coincidence? Yes, but still.

4 – Not up for debate.

5 – Oh, and the very Tatooine-ish desert planet, Jakku, that has been featured prominently in the trailers and figures to be more than just a temporary location, does not make it better (sigh). It’s a cheat for people like me who would complain about going back to Tatooine (basically JJ is having his desert, and eating it, too.) And I wouldn’t be totally surprised if before the credits roll on either this movie or the new trilogy as a whole, that we don’t see those dual suns shining at some point.

6 – I think this starship may have already sailed based on some of the trailers and behind the scenes stuff, but I guess it’s inevitable.

7 – Either new, or old – see Skywalker, Luke. And yes, I know this is a bog part of the expanded universe of the books with the next generation of Solo/Skywalker’s doing the family redemption arc but it was lame there too. Find a new story to tell.

8 – Even if they aren’t necessarily referred to by those names.

9 – By the way, Star Wars is the name of the movie that came out in 1977. The first movie. I’ve heard talk of something called “A New Hope,” but I’m not familiar with that term.

July 24, 2012

A tragedy unfolded on Friday in a movie theater in Colorado. By now everyone is well-versed in the details which are unnecessary to recount here and likely as familiar with the twisted perpetrator who will also get no more mention than is needed. His name is irrelevant and printing it here would only further validate his desire for notoriety that he earned in the most deplorable way possible.

But this isn’t being written to analyze what happened or even why. The frustrating truth is that in many cases the why is often unsatisfying and all too common – he was a disturbed individual who sought to externalize his pain by involving others in a desperate attempt to give his pathetic existence some meaning. You can’t make sense of the nonsensical. And any situation where young children* are coldly gunned down is the very definition of nonsensical.

My real issue is what happened after as the word of this tragedy drifted into cyberspace and the commenters took over. This is when a new level of disturbing behavior came into view. I’m not referring to the gallows humor that inevitably becomes a part of any tragedy. The internet is a breeding ground for mostly immature, mostly male, mostly teenage (some literally, the rest emotionally) idiots who come up with some tired retread of a joke followed by the oh-so-witty “too soon?” These don’t bother me so much.

The far more disturbing responses nestled among the well-wishes, support and prayers to those affected, were the numerous people who actually seemed to delight in this news. They weren’t outright celebrating, but it’s hard to miss the genuine excitement in their responses because it granted them the latest opportunity to finger-point and blast their opposition. They can vent, rant and spew their angry rhetoric. Pro-gun. Anti-gun. Tea party. Occupy movement. Democrat. Republican. Pop culture haters. They all found the proof for their cause (and more importantly, against their opposition) in this tragedy.

It’s not a stretch to imagine they lie in wait, hoping for a situation such as this to unfold so they can offer what basically amounts to “See! I told you so!” And this was a ripe one.

Some couldn’t even wait a few minutes before chiming in. Do you believe that the NRA has all the answers? Then this was proof that people need to carry arms at all times to protect their family. These are the ones who live in an imaginary world where if they were in this situation, they would calmly rise up, take aim amid the chaos and, with one shot, end the madman’s shooting spree. Their rallying cry is “If I was there with my gun, it would have ended differently.” (Let’s call this delusional mindset the “Mark Wahlberg Mentality” for his assertion that with his skills as a guy who play-pretends to be a hero in front of cameras, he could have single-handedly taken out the terrorists on 9/11 and landed those planes safely.) Of course, the reality is that these guys and their urine-soaked pants would have likely ended up frantically running for cover. And that would have been the most sensible action they could have done. Because the one thing that a smoke-filled room full of panicked people did not need was more people firing guns. Sure it seems simple now with the knowledge that there was only one gunman, but in the heat of the moment, if other armed idiots had decided to take shots, how would they have known who was trying to help and who was trying to harm. The odds that more guns would have equalled more deaths is much greater than some sort of resolution where the only fatality was the crazy guy with the machine gun thanks to some “hero.”

And that machine gun is an important detail, because that was what REALLY got the anti-gun crowd licking their lips with their quick responses. They were so eager to attack anyone who had ever even read the second amendment, that you could feel their glee exuding from their posts. This was another moment to decry gun ownership and the ease with which weapons can be obtained. “See! This is what happens. Take the guns away.”

Except that really this wasn’t about guns according to many, but politics. Happy posters saying it’s somehow Obama’s fault. Which isn’t possible when you consider all the ones blaming Bush. Or those who just blamed both saying it’s our divisive political culture that’s driving this sort of action. Or, no, it’s that group of flag-waving, bible-thumping, corporate shills, that call themselves the Tea Party who are always inciting violence through their anti-government rage. But hold on, actually this is the fault of the Occupy movement. Those freeloading, socialist/communist, unwashed masses who are just anti-business, anti-American balls of rage looking to unfairly assault anyone making an honest 7-figure wage.

Or maybe you’re still singing that same tired tune from the 80s. (And 70s. And 60s…). The one that says it’s the violence in music/movies/video games/television shows that is to blame. This guy was obsessed with the Batman movies and whited to emulate his hero the Joker. They think that this mind-numbing nonsense does nothing but corrupt minds and breed sociopaths. (Except, of course, that these same forms of violent entertainment can be found in many other countries that are not known to have these mass shootings.)

It was all of these and more, rearing their heads and espousing their tired “fill in the blank” rhetoric in every message board they infested. They all were so eager to paint this sub-human as the symbol of everything they hate, that in some cases they even shouted down those who simply wanted to offer a note of condolence. To the shouters, these simpering, simpletons just don’t “get it.” They don’t realize this is more than an isolated incident and that by not acknowledging this they are probably part of the problem. They can’t believe you don’t understand how this clearly validates their point of view, even when this one act somehow validates many points of view, even those that are diametrically opposed.

Maybe next time** things can be different. Maybe next time, these people can wait a few weeks before trying to adopt another tragedy as just another talking point in their pet cause. Maybe they can actually remember that in the moments after a tragedy, assigning blame beyond the culprit does nothing but give greater meaning to meaningless act. It puts a person who is, and should be, a lone example of insanity, a group to identify with. It says that this one unstable individual is just part of larger cause, giving him greater relevance than he deserves. It may even allow some enterprising lawyer to convince his client that he was in fact influenced by whatever the internet says he was. That it’s not his fault. He’s a pawn in a larger battle. That in the end, he’s just another victim.

Or at the very least, maybe people can just wait before taking sides and pointing fingers, so they don’t come across as so excited for yet another opportunity to take sides and point fingers. Because if a tragedy like this should show us anything, it’s that we need to be less divisive. Less angry. Less prone to attack and blame. Less eager to prop up people looking to do something extreme to call attention to their own tiny deficiencies. Yes, it’s a sick world sometimes, but that shouldn’t be something you’re eager to exploit. Because that’s when you really are part of the problem.

*Another conversation could be had on the questionable parenting that had children younger than 8 attending a hyper-violent midnight movie in the first place, but alas that sort of common sense sadly falls on deaf (and defensive) ears.

**And unfortunately there will be a next time. Not because of video games. Or movies. Or Republicans. Or Occupiers. Or the NRA. But because there are other mentally unstable people out there and it’s not always easy to tell until it’s too late.

Hey Adam. How’s it going. Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know I’m on to you. I get it, you don’t give a damn anymore. Not that you really should. Clearly it doesn’t matter.

AT&T couldn’t even phone it in as good as you have in your recent movies. Actually, you don’t so much make movies anymore as you do vacation plans. You call up some of your talented friends (and Rob Schneider), pick a cool location (Hawaii, backwoods retreat, etc.), grab a hack director (whoops, sorry, that should read hack director) and start rolling. Plot isn’t that important, so you just reheat a stale sitcom premise – pretending to be married, old dudes reliving past glories, a twin brother and sister (BOTH PLAYED BY YOU!!) and go through the motions. You just crank out the same man-boy, ne’er-do-well schtick (who, incidentally, is still the smartest guy in the room) and wait for the eight figure opening. Rinse. Repeat.

Of course, this formula is working for you. Clearly. So if it ain’t broke, then don’t ever break a sweat. And I know that when you’ve tried to branch out the results have been impressive as an actor but your core “fans” stay away in droves so the movies are deemed flops. It reminds me of John Cusack back in the early nineties. I was working in a video store when a woman came in to return Say Anything. “Did you like it?,” I asked. “No. It wasn’t funny. And I like when he draws the cartoons.” (Further proof that the influence of Savage Steve Holland CAN NOT be underestimated.) This is how many Sandler fans feel about movies like Punch-Drunk Love and Reign Over Me. (For the sake of this argument, we’ll go ahead and ignore Spanglish and the colossal misfire Funny People and focus on the untraditional roles that are actually worth watching.) It’s too bad, because both of those largely ignored (and often derided by your fan base) movies hint at what you might be able to pull off. Punch-Drunk took the latent (or, sometimes outright) rage simmering in most of your characters and turned it into a tragic portrayal of repression while Reign Over Me amped up the sorrow and loneliness behind the rage.

Of course a case can be made that your movies have always been a high-concept, low-brains premise (rich man-child goes back to school, athletic man-child plays golf, backwoods man-child plays football, and so on) but at least there was some anarchic fun about them whereas, with your recent movies, I sense an underlying contempt for the audience. Perhaps there is a sense of annoyance that when you do something outside of your comfort zone it gets ignored or deemed a commercial failure. Maybe you’re annoyed that your fans won’t follow you anywhere (you’re in good company, Bill Murray and Jim Carrey both suffered through this – though Bill finally broke through to much aplomb while Carrey is promoting his newest cautionary-tale, Mr. Popper’s Penguins.) It feels like you’re saying, “You want me to do dumb comedies? Fine, then dumb comedies ye shall have!”

Maybe I’m reading in to it and you’re just trying to give your core fans what they want. I don’t doubt that you’re having fun and being successful at it – not a bad way to make a living. Still, I’d like to see something better. You’re a smart guy and you can be funny (though this is obviously not based on any recent evidence) so how about a little effort. How about stretching those dramatic muscles or putting some actual effort into a comedy script with a fresh idea.

August 14, 2010

The Expendables opens this weekend and it is THE GREATEST MOVIE STARRING THE GREATEST ACTION STARS OF THE LAST THIRTY YEARS ALL TOGETHER!!! But, of course, you already know that. And if you are a middle-aged man/boy and Ed Hardy aficionado, chances are you are in line somewhere right now with a box of popcorn and a boner. (On a related note, if your last name is Seagal or Van Damme, you are most likely still waiting by the phone in a puddle of your own tears. There’s always the sequel, boys.)

Me, I’ll probably wait until it hits Netflix.

Interestingly, The Expendables was not the first choice for the title of the movie reuniting Reagan’s Brute Squad. Herewith are the rejected titles:

I have a twelve year old daughter. Thank you. Her worldview is like that of any preteen which means that she is under the false impression that the experiences of her generation are completely original. Music, movies, fashion, personal tastes – the whole sphere of pop culture surrounding her demographic is like nothing no others have seen.

It is therefore my job to let her know that in reality her entire generation is ripping off my entire generation (who, incidentally, DID do everything original. Pipe down, mom.)

It always fun to deflate her arrogance with a “yeah, we did that first.” In her defense, the big reason that I can do this is because my generation is pretty much running the pop culture machine these days and if there’s one thing my generation excels at, it’s being narcissitic. So the people making movies, TV shows and music are regurgitating our childhoods to the people buying movies, TV shows and music. Because of this, the younger generation has no choice but to feed on our reheated leftovers. (A quick look at the multiplex confirms this, eh, B.A. and Perseus.)

Recently, she was throwing out what she deemed originals of her generation and I countered with the equivalent from mine. The following is a simple “Your generation’s THIS, was our generation’s THAT.” It’s a handy conversion chart for anyone who either needs to counter their own budding brainiac or for those who are a’scared of the new generation and think that you can’t relate. Come on now, we unleashed Boy George on the world, surely you can handle Adam Lambert.

Did you hear about that new movie? The Karate Kid. Man, there’s something familiar about that title.

Yes, it’s just the latest (and not anywhere near the last) in an avalanche of movies being adapted from the cinematic wellspring of my youth. The summer movie season has already seen remakes, er reboots, uh, I mean reimaginings of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Clash of the Titans (and this doesn’t even take into account TV show reboots exploding on the big screen) and there are many more on tap.

Now, it’s not that I am anti-remake. Not at all. Though I do think a little more time should pass between original and redo (I’d say 40+ years is a better timeframe) and you should only remake movies that need remakes. For instance, The Breakfast Club does not need a remake, the original holds up well-enough today that any modern tweaks would only be pandering. (Really, do we some crappy script that just throws in references to sexting and “OMG’s.” Thankfully an intended remake appears to have fallen apart last I heard.)

Also, for a movie to need a remake, the original should be something that is horribly dated to the point where it’s hard for an audience to get past it to focus on the story. To me, the best movies to remake are ones that either never got the attention they deserved or ones with a great story to tell that were botched in the execution.

Of the three mentioned above – Karate Kid, Titans, and Nightmare – none really fall into these categories. The stories are universal enough that any dated references won’t overpower the core story. Sure, Titans is high-grade cheese filled with lame effects (though you gotta love Harryhausen), bad dialogue and worse acting but it is a beloved movie almost because of those things rather than in spite of them. Besides in the case of the new Titans, it wasn’t really a remake so much as it was the same title and mostly the same characters and some familiar setups, but it deviated from the script enough that it really could have used a different title. Karate Kid appears to suffer from the same disease. Look guys, if you’re going to use the title then just remake the movie. I get why they want to name the cake and eat it to, the all important “brand recognition” factor. But the bottom line is, if you don’t have faith in your movie, focus more on the script and don’t just rely on the associations of the words gracing the cover.

As for the Nightmare† reboot. Sorry, Jackie Earle Haley, I think you’re a fantastic actor, but you, sir, are no Robert Englund.

But that’s not to say there aren’t some movies that should be remade. If they’re going to lazily stroll through the 80’s looking for films to dredge up, there are better options than the ones we’ve been given. For starters, stop going after the ones that were highly successful, those that still hold up well or ones that are largely considered cultural touchstones of our collective youth (this means you sure-to-be-horrible upcoming remake of Red Dawn) and start combing through the noble failures.

And if you’re going to use the title then remake the movie.

Below is a completely personal list of movies I think would be much better options for remakes than what we’ve been getting.

One note: When I sat down to write this, I decided to pick the movies first and after finishing I would check to see if any of these are actually being remade. Any notes to this effect can be found at the end.

• Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins* (1985) – This is one of the poster children for “Under-watched Gems.” I subjected my twelve-year-old to a viewing and she really liked it. I think the ending suffers from some bad editing and the climax is mostly on the “anti” side of the coin, but it’s still a fun, enjoyable movie. And I always appreciated the ballsiness of the title. Announcing an intended sequel right there in the name of a movie takes guts (or, in the case of something, like Leonard, Part 6, an unhealthy amount of delusion). You would probably need to get Joel Grey to play Chiun again because he nailed the role (though if I remember correctly there was some grousing about him playing a Korean man, jeesh.) My fear is they would try to get some comic actor to take on the role and completely misread what was great about the humorous character. The Statue of Liberty scene (which is still impressive) would of course need to be altered, but the framework of the movie is strong. Get a better villain and a good sardonic leading man and you’ve got what could actually be the beginning of more adventures this time.

• Electric Dreams** (1984) – I always liked this oddball little movie about “Moles” and his computer that gains consciousness. It’s part Cyrano, part Short Circuit and part Fatal Attraction as he and said computer both develop feelings for the sexy girl in the building. Some of the computer stuff was fairly advanced for the mid-80’s with a computer-controlled home wired into a central hub. But with such a strong focus on what should be cutting edge technology, an update is necessary at this point. However, the central conceit of a man competing with a wired-in suitor for the attention of a woman is quite relevant in our social media obsessed world of today. Who hasn’t felt like they were sharing someone’s affection with a tech item? (And often, losing the battle.)

• Dragonslayer (1981) – This was a well-done and admirably dark (in many ways) movie that has been largely forgotten. I remember it being a pretty big deal when it was released. It was a good story that developed a real sense of dread. I rewatched this six or so years ago and thought that it held up well all things considered. Most surprising, I found that the dragon effects aren’t embarrassing as I thought they might be. In fact, it looked better than some other CGI-reliant movies that have come out since (Dragonheart, please step forward). It’s a good story that could use a little tightening but would do well with some carefully done state-of-the-art production work (as long as they don’t overdo it with the CGI). Nerd-blasphemy alert: I’d rather see Peter Jackson take on this than the Hobbit.

• The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982) – Sure everyone remembers Conan, but do you remember all of the other Dungeons and Dragons type movies that came out in those days? The glut of low-budget, high-gore, mystical sword-and-sandal flicks that probably helped define the term “straight to video?” For me, the greatest of them all was The Sword and the Sorcerer. Now if everyone gave a collective “huh?” to the title I would understand. But if you watched cable TV circa 1983 and I said the words “the movie that had that three-bladed sword that could shoot the blades out” now you know what I mean, don’t you? Yeah, you do. It’s been twenty years since I’ve seen this one, but rather than slap out yet another Conan, how about the studio instead give this one a redo. It was fairly well done and I remember it having a sly sense of humor about itself among the buckets of blood that Conan lacked. And of course, that awesome sword.

• Silent Rage (1982) – Chuck Norris battles an unstoppable, raised-from-the-dead killer. This was one of the first movies I snuck in to see and since they’re treading on the corpses of all of the other 80’s slasher flicks with pointless rermakes, why not this one? It’s got a nice paranoid take on the old “doctors playing God” scenario that is relatable today with all of the genetic advancements and superdrugs and it all begets an raging (but mute, hence the title) killing machine. And, you know, Chuck is still around and ready for a comeback so you really just have to roll the cameras.

• Manitou (uh, 1978, close enough) – Oh, the spirits are angry in this one, my friend. It’s about a woman who finds out that she’s about to give birth to an ancient Indian Demon thing. It starts as a suspected tumor. On her back. And give birth she does. From a giant lump. Still on her back. Only a witch doctor can save her and the world from this creature. A hospital ward gets frozen. Her hospital room ends up in outer space. Why is this not already filming?

The Prophecy (1979, yeah that counts) – Ah, speaking of ‘science is evil’ movies, let’s talk about the Prophecy. I’m sure with the newly oil-enriched Gulf of Mexico we can probably expect a renewed interest in “we’re screwing with nature and nature is going to start fighting back” type movies. This one is about giant bear thing that was mutated by some careless industrial waste and it rampages through a park killing everyone. Yes the effects are terrible, the acting is bad, the script is worse, but the setup is fine and the monster was appreciably unpredictable and out-of-control. It was actually scary and not just because it was so bad. It just needs a better production budget.

• The Last Starfighter (1984) – This was the hardest one to put on the list and truth be told I’d probably be offended if it was being remade (and it will not be a popular opinion). I don’t know anyone who saw it that didn’t like it. Ideally, I’d like to see the original movie gain an appreciation again but I don’t think it’s going to happen. Though it didn’t do much in the theaters it had a great life on video/cable, yet it’s not one that still permeates pop culture and doesn’t get replayed often as far as I can tell. With video games even more realistic and the controls more complex, the central conceit that a race of aliens uses a video game to recruit a pilot would work even better now. The performances were all good, it had humor, heart, action and oddly-foreheaded aliens – in short, it had it all. If they simply upgrade the special effects (and don’t try to go overboard with some reimagining or effect overload) and stick to the same ‘small town kid does good’ setup, this could be a real crowd pleaser again.

• Uncommon Valor (1983) – This may be my favorite “war movie” of the 80’s (okay, wait, sorry, Red Dawn first, then this, then Missing in Action: Part 2.) It’s been in rotation on HBO this month and it was great to see again. The cast is excellent – Gene Hackman, Patrick Swayze, Fred Ward, the reliably crazy Randall “Tex” Cobb, the underappreciated Tim Thomerson. I suppose the remake would want to bring it into the modern day by having it relate to the middle east somehow and as long as that’s the only real change, I could let it slide. Leave the rest of it alone and get the damn team back together.

• Used Cars (1980) – Some have called the recent movie “The Goods” a remake of this because it centered on used car salesmen, but it wasn’t (and an insult to even suggest upon viewing both). I’m sure someone, somewhere tried to get the Used Cars name slapped on that one but they thankfully didn’t. Used Cars is a very funny movie and one of Kurt Russel’s best comedic performances. In general I’m not a fan of comedy remakes, because unlike a dramatic situation, you can’t recycle comedic moments and have the same effect. So you then have to either change all the jokes (thus negating a need for a ‘remake’) or you use the same material and let them suffer from either familiarity – which is comedy death – or an unfair comparison to what will surely be considered the superior original. Still, having said all that, some of the situations in this movie are just too good to not be funny again if handled with care. And other than the horribly retro apparel, there’s not a whole lot that would need to be updated.

• War Games*** (1983) – “Shall we play a game?” Yes, it’s a beloved movie that was a fairly sizeable hit in the 80s and there’s not a whole lot that can be improved in regards to acting, story or production. So it pretty much contradicts my “reasons to do a remake” list. Oh, but my aren’t those computers horribly outdated. Modems play a big part in the story for god’s sake (and if you say “what’s a modem?” then my point is proved). I know there was some had-to-be-horrible sequel thing that was crapped out a few years ago. It was so bad, I don’t even think it went ‘straight to video,’ they probably just shipped the master disc straight to TBS. So let’s just go with a remake. They can even get Matthew Broderick to play the reclusive genius who built the killer program. But don’t you touch Ferris Bueller, dammit.****

• The Black Hole***** (er, 1979, last one, I promise) – Man, I loved this movie when I first saw it. Man, is it hard to sit through now. The comedy falls totally flat. The special effects are atrocious. The dialogue and acting is bad even by 1970’s live-action Disney movie standards. It was hard to get either of my kids to sit through a viewing of this one and once the mocking began I just had to take it. So please remake this one but there are some iron clad things that shalt not be changed. V.I.N.C.E.N.T. was and still is cool, keep him the same. The Cygnus was a nice looking ship, again, not broken so don’t fix. You gotta have the ‘former crew members being turned into lobotomized drones’ storyline. And above all, do not change anything, ANYTHING, about Maximilian. He was, hands down, the coolest robot bad ass ever to grace the screen. Gort couldn’t hold his jock. And nothing from even my beloved Star Wars trilogy could face up to him and his deadly helicopter hands. And no crappy CGI for him either. Build the damn thing life size, no excuses.

*Remo’s adventure may indeed be beginning again. Last July there was chatter about some producers looking to get a ‘Destroyer’ movie on track. ‘The Destroyer’ is name of the series of novels the character came from.

**Well that’s two-for-two. Apparently Electric Dreams is also in development. The best outcome for this would be that maybe I can actually get the original on DVD now. Though the tagged article is a couple of years old, there is a listing for it on IMDB as well.

*****Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. The good news is that they appear to be adhering to at least two of my commandments thus far. The Cygnus’ design will remain the same and Maximilian will be back with in all his spinning blade glory. The plan is to make this one a little more serious and scientifically sound, and that may not be a bad thing.

†The Nightmare on Elm Street situation does bring up one distinction when looking at remakes. When you making a movie about a specific character or group of characters, you can get way with using a familiar character in a new story and avoid being an outright remake. For instance, on its surface The Dark Knight was a movie about Batman squaring off against the Joker but it wasn’t at all a remake of 1989’s Batman even though that movie had the same central conflict. In this respect, superhero movies can be churned out from now until the end of time without one ever needing to be a “remake.” Sometimes, however, a character and actor are too intimately linked making the extension of the character in a new adventure difficult for audiences to take. (Would anyone else be accepted as John McClane? Did Terminator: Salvation ultimately fail because Arnold had only a token cameo? My answers would be “not any anytime soon” and “yes, but among many other reasons.”) But, as James Bond has proven time and again, even a seemingly irreplaceable actor ultimately takes a back seat to the character if done well.